Lawyers for both Apple and Samsung heard US District Court Judge Lucy Koh loud and clear on Wednesday, when she urged the two sides to get on the phone and try for a settlement one last time. That conversation happened over the weekend, but Apple v. Samsung appears headed for a jury decision.

“The parties have met and conferred about case narrowing, but have not been able to narrow their cases further.” That's how this weekend's joint filing signed by attorneys on both sides read (as published by Bloomberg).

This wasn't the first time both sides sat down to talk settlement, but it's likely the last, with both sidesresting their cases this past week. Previously, Judge Koh ordered the companies to meet back in May with the same endgame in mind. Back then, both Samsung CEO Choi Gee-sung and Apple CEO Tim Cook were present while the companies engaged in two days of unsuccessful court-ordered mediation.

This is such an awesomely bad case. The net effect of all of this legal posturing and wrangling will be: lawyers will make a ton of money, Samsung and Apple will keep doing exactly as they've always done. End of story.

I find it amusing that Android makers could hammer out a deal with microsoft, but apple still refuses to come up with reasonable licensing.

I think the difference is that Microsoft actually wants to licence various patents, and are probably willing to bend to a certain extent, whereas Apple doesn't want to, and the Samsung offer seems to me like they only did so because they rely on other divisions of Samsung for their own products.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Apple-Microsoft deal we heard about recently was instigated by Microsoft.

I find it amusing that Android makers could hammer out a deal with microsoft, but apple still refuses to come up with reasonable licensing.

Why do you find that amusing? Apple is in a stronger position than Microsoft, of course Microsoft will make concessions. If Microsoft was in the position Apple is now (ie, raking in the majority of mobile market profits), do you honestly think they would be "hammering out" deals with Android device makers?

Companies fuck each other all the time. Samsung is fucking Apple by shamelessly stealing their designs, Apple is fucking them with lawsuits and Microsoft is fucking Android vendors with the (sweet for Microsoft) licencing costs. Motorola and Samsung, themselves, are trying to fuck Microsoft and Apple over by pulling out additional "licence requirement" for FRAND patents out of their asses, even though those are already factored into the chip price of the chips Apple and Microsoft use.

It’s not Apple’s problem that Samsung went into the whole iPhone-like-smartphones business thinking it will be as easy as fucking over companies and people in South Korea, where they enjoy de facto government support. If they had any less idiots amont their management ranks, they’d damn well manage to make something unique enough a la Windows Phone 7. Sadly, they have no morals, and Apple is finally in the position to fight back.

Microsoft has supposedly demanded $15 per device from HTC, Barnes & Noble, etc. for the FAT patent. And they have ITC injunctions stopping devices from being solve in markets over the FAT patent. How is that not standards essential? Shouldn't they be required to license it under FRAND terms?

Microsoft has supposedly demanded $15 per device from HTC, Barnes & Noble, etc. for the FAT patent. And they have ITC injunctions stopping devices from being solve in markets over the FAT patent. How is that not standards essential? Shouldn't they be required to license it under FRAND terms?

Noone is really forced to use FAT, or? They can use their own file system and make a controller chip and write the drivers for it.

FAT is just there already and Windows has drivers for it. So companies piggyback on Microsoft’s work.

If FAT was a FRAND-able (widespread, de facto industry, ISO certified) standard, they would have to licence it FRAND-ly. Is it, though? I thought it’s just that most companies chose to use it because it saved them time and work, as someone else did the work around that already.

Microsoft has supposedly demanded $15 per device from HTC, Barnes & Noble, etc. for the FAT patent. And they have ITC injunctions stopping devices from being solve in markets over the FAT patent. How is that not standards essential? Shouldn't they be required to license it under FRAND terms?

Not at all, there are a polethera of different file systems out there for use such as squashfs or jffs2. FRAND is typically seen as needed for patents that are "required" to make a device, such as 3G patents on a cell phone.

I find it amusing that Android makers could hammer out a deal with microsoft, but apple still refuses to come up with reasonable licensing.

Why do you find that amusing? Apple is in a stronger position than Microsoft, of course Microsoft will make concessions. If Microsoft was in the position Apple is now (ie, raking in the majority of mobile market profits), do you honestly think they would be "hammering out" deals with Android device makers?

It is actually a difference in philosophy likely in part due to MS being sued for being a monopoly, just wait till apple gets there.

The difference is, Apple will patent things and refuse to licence its patents (they are mine, you can't use them). MS will patent things and licence them as an additional revenue stream (and do cross licencing so they don't get in this mess as much as others).

And yes yes, everyone knows the Apple line.. "if people would just invent their own stuff instead of stealing ours". Just remember Apple did not invent virtually any telecommunication IP and has refused to licence the IP they don't own but are using, because they want a preferential rate.

As I see it, and I know others see things differently, while Apple is justified in protecting it's patents it will not licence, it is also guilty of doing the exact same things it is accusing others of doing.

Microsoft has supposedly demanded $15 per device from HTC, Barnes & Noble, etc. for the FAT patent. And they have ITC injunctions stopping devices from being solve in markets over the FAT patent. How is that not standards essential? Shouldn't they be required to license it under FRAND terms?

Noone is really forced to use FAT, or? They can use their own file system and make a controller chip and write the drivers for it.

FAT is just there already and Windows has drivers for it. So companies piggyback on Microsoft’s work.

If FAT was a FRAND-able (widespread, de facto industry, ISO certified) standard, they would have to licence it FRAND-ly. Is it, though? I thought it’s just that most companies chose to use it because it saved them time and work, as someone else did the work around that already.

SD cards, USB drives, etc. all default to FAT to interoperability across multiple operating systems. The EU demanded Microsoft support OS interoperability or face another massive EU fine, and possibly have their products blocked from the EU.

I'd say blocking the sale of competing products that offer interoperability support with WIndows (FAT support) could be seen as a violation of the agreement Microsoft made with the EU.

It’s not Apple’s problem that Samsung went into the whole iPhone-like-smartphones business thinking it will be as easy as fucking over companies and people in South Korea, where they enjoy de facto government support. If they had any less idiots amont their management ranks, they’d damn well manage to make something unique enough a la Windows Phone 7. Sadly, they have no morals, and Apple is finally in the position to fight back.

Great iFan pontification.

Apple is trying to make-up for 25 years of regret over Windows/PCs by "going nuclear" on anyone who they compete against. They entered a market that had existed peacefully for over 15 years with amazing leaps in design and technology all being used as inspiration by competitors in a healthy manner and are saying "even though we borrowed tons of tech and design from prior innovators you can't borrow ANY of ours..." This is bad for technology innovation, bad for competition, and bad for consumers. Everyone keeps trying to make a point that Samsung "really did copy!" but Apple hasn't stopped at suing just Samsung, they've sued every other major cellphone manufacturer that has produced an Android device at the same time and tried to get injunctions on ALL of them.

The true reality is that Apple is really suing to protect their walled garden, closed platform approach. Once againt they are trying to compete against the Win/PC model of openness, except this time it is Android holding the reins. People want choice. They want options that make them feel unique, different, or special. They want competition. They want value.

Apple doesn't want any of these things. They want their garden, and only their garden. They are losing marketshare not because Samsung made one phone that looked a lot like the iPhone, but because Apple made one phone that doesn't look or act like any of the other 100 different versions of Android phones out there. They made another Mac, and Android is powering this generation of customizable and different PCs.

They painted themselves into the same corner they got squeezed into 25 years ago, and this time it was on purpose.

It’s not Apple’s problem that Samsung went into the whole iPhone-like-smartphones business thinking it will be as easy as fucking over companies and people in South Korea, where they enjoy de facto government support. If they had any less idiots amont their management ranks, they’d damn well manage to make something unique enough a la Windows Phone 7. Sadly, they have no morals, and Apple is finally in the position to fight back.

Every company involved is doing what their accountants and legal teams think is "legal enough to get away with", and every decision is done to maximize profit or market share. Both Apple and Samsung think they can win the most, or lose the least, out of this case - that is obvious from the lack of concessions being made after all the chances they've been given to settle this in other ways.

There is absolutely zero reason to get emotionally invested in this or start debating something as subjective as morality. That will lead to nothing but problems since a discussion of the differences in moral standing between two individuals is practically impossible, let alone between two groups made up of thousands.

The courts really should try one last tactic. Send the corporate executives into the woods and let them engage is a 'pissing contest'--seeing who could pee the furtherest. The winner wins this dispute.

Both Apple and Samsung are acting like third-grade boys on a playground. They should be competing over quality and price not fighting in court over whether Apple 'owns' rounded corners on tablets.

They entered a market that had existed peacefully for over 15 years with amazing leaps in design and technology all being used as inspiration by competitors in a healthy manner and are saying "even though we borrowed tons of tech and design from prior innovators you can't borrow ANY of ours..."

You're kidding right? The cell phone industry has been anything but peaceful. Ever. Have a look at why the whole FRAND system was put into play. You'll find some very familiar names, names that are still causing problems, even with FRAND in place.

Quote:

The true reality is that Apple is really suing to protect their walled garden, closed platform approach. Once againt they are trying to compete against the Win/PC model of openness, except this time it is Android holding the reins. People want choice. They want options that make them feel unique, different, or special. They want competition. They want value.

Each cell phone manufacturer wants to lock you into their eco-system. Android, iOS, Windows and it's various iterations, RIM. ALL of them have a walled garden. All of them are competition. All of them offer value. Android phones are often cheaper, but have a less useful lifespan. Since it is pretty rare for their software to ever get upgraded. Working as intended. You end up buying a new phone, instead of getting newer software free.

Apple produces a higher end product, that goes for some money. Unlike a lot of 'Free' Android phones. But they have a much longer service life. Both approaches offer value, just from a different angle. As far as MS and their phone software in W8, that's still an unknown. I hope they take a hard line with carriers like Apple did, to both insure their software gets updated, and to get rid of the stupid carrier bloat.

Quote:

Apple doesn't want any of these things. They want their garden, and only their garden. They are losing marketshare not because Samsung made one phone that looked a lot like the iPhone, but because Apple made one phone that doesn't look or act like any of the other 100 different versions of Android phones out there. They made another Mac, and Android is powering this generation of customizable and different PCs.

Apple, like everyone else wants to sell a product. And to sell products of their own design in the future. By going after Samsung for blatantly obvious copying, other companies and Samsung themselves will be sure to differentiate their products. Not a bad thing at all. Good for innovation, and good for consumers as they get a real choice. Not a Product A, or Product A copy.

By looking at companies as sports teams, with fandom and cheering people are depriving themselves of choices. Currently I use an Android phone made by Samsung. And quite frankly I hate it. When I replace this one it will be either back to an iPhone, or maybe W8. We'll see.

The true reality is that Apple is really suing to protect their walled garden, closed platform approach. Once againt they are trying to compete against the Win/PC model of openness, except this time it is Android holding the reins. People want choice. They want options that make them feel unique, different, or special. They want competition. They want value.

Apple doesn't want any of these things. They want their garden, and only their garden. They are losing marketshare not because Samsung made one phone that looked a lot like the iPhone, but because Apple made one phone that doesn't look or act like any of the other 100 different versions of Android phones out there. They made another Mac, and Android is powering this generation of customizable and different PCs.

They painted themselves into the same corner they got squeezed into 25 years ago, and this time it was on purpose.

I think you hit on the heart and soul of the issue.

And this is just how I feel about this..... but all of this comes across as Apple trying to force people into their "walled garden". It's not enough that they have an insanely popular product and have made tons of money.... they want it all. They want our choice to be iPhone/iPad or nothing.

What astounds me is how POORLY this judge has handled this so far. Does she understand the possible consequences of this case? This "last minute settlement" thing, from the way I've read it here and elsewhere, it makes me feel like Judge Koh intended to go back to this and hoped that she could push the companies to settling.

Microsoft has supposedly demanded $15 per device from HTC, Barnes & Noble, etc. for the FAT patent. And they have ITC injunctions stopping devices from being solve in markets over the FAT patent. How is that not standards essential? Shouldn't they be required to license it under FRAND terms?

Not at all, there are a polethera of different file systems out there for use such as squashfs or jffs2. FRAND is typically seen as needed for patents that are "required" to make a device, such as 3G patents on a cell phone.

I don't think that's what makes things FRAND. Can't you make the same exact argument for cell phone tech too? There are other standard to use on cell phones. There are CDMA, TDMA, GSM, WCDMA, UMTS, iDEN, CDMA2000.

I thought FRAND was done voluntarily by the creators to try to make that tech a standard.

I find it amusing that Android makers could hammer out a deal with microsoft, but apple still refuses to come up with reasonable licensing.

Why do you find that amusing? Apple is in a stronger position than Microsoft, of course Microsoft will make concessions. If Microsoft was in the position Apple is now (ie, raking in the majority of mobile market profits), do you honestly think they would be "hammering out" deals with Android device makers?

It is actually a difference in philosophy likely in part due to MS being sued for being a monopoly, just wait till apple gets there.

The difference is, Apple will patent things and refuse to licence its patents (they are mine, you can't use them). MS will patent things and licence them as an additional revenue stream (and do cross licencing so they don't get in this mess as much as others).

And yes yes, everyone knows the Apple line.. "if people would just invent their own stuff instead of stealing ours". Just remember Apple did not invent virtually any telecommunication IP and has refused to licence the IP they don't own but are using, because they want a preferential rate.

As I see it, and I know others see things differently, while Apple is justified in protecting it's patents it will not licence, it is also guilty of doing the exact same things it is accusing others of doing.

It depends if Apples patents are considered FRAND. In this case I think they aren't as the stuff they are going after Samsung on is just how close Samsung has made their phones and custom UI match Apples own.

The most damaging thing going against Samsung at this point (to me) are:1. Google had at least partially agreed and warned Samsung.2. Samsung has already been down this road and changed their design in Germany and now things are resolved there (which also shows that these aren't FRAND patents).

We'll see what the jury says. It feels like things are a little more on Apples side but who really knows what the members are feeling at this point.

Also, of course these meetings aren't going to work. They've been having them well before this case ever got started or even filed.

It’s not Apple’s problem that Samsung went into the whole iPhone-like-smartphones business thinking it will be as easy as fucking over companies and people in South Korea, where they enjoy de facto government support. If they had any less idiots amont their management ranks, they’d damn well manage to make something unique enough a la Windows Phone 7. Sadly, they have no morals, and Apple is finally in the position to fight back.

Great iFan pontification.

Apple is trying to make-up for 25 years of regret over Windows/PCs by "going nuclear" on anyone who they compete against. They entered a market that had existed peacefully for over 15 years with amazing leaps in design and technology all being used as inspiration by competitors in a healthy manner and are saying "even though we borrowed tons of tech and design from prior innovators you can't borrow ANY of ours..." This is bad for technology innovation, bad for competition, and bad for consumers. Everyone keeps trying to make a point that Samsung "really did copy!" but Apple hasn't stopped at suing just Samsung, they've sued every other major cellphone manufacturer that has produced an Android device at the same time and tried to get injunctions on ALL of them.

The true reality is that Apple is really suing to protect their walled garden, closed platform approach. Once againt they are trying to compete against the Win/PC model of openness, except this time it is Android holding the reins. People want choice. They want options that make them feel unique, different, or special. They want competition. They want value.

Apple doesn't want any of these things. They want their garden, and only their garden. They are losing marketshare not because Samsung made one phone that looked a lot like the iPhone, but because Apple made one phone that doesn't look or act like any of the other 100 different versions of Android phones out there. They made another Mac, and Android is powering this generation of customizable and different PCs.

They painted themselves into the same corner they got squeezed into 25 years ago, and this time it was on purpose.

Apple is trying to protect their investment. Apple certainly did not invent the smartphone, but the modern smartphone would not be where it is today without Apple. They took tremendous risk and spent a fortune to develop it. They don't care about competition, as long as its not a direct rip-off of what they developed. Apple specifically said that they filed hundreds of patents to protect the iphone when it was first announced in 2007.

Apple is not suing and trying to prevent all smartphones from entering the market. Just the ones that really copy the iphone. Its possible to make a smartphone that does not look and act like an iphone. Just look at what MS did with Windows Phone.

Frankly, more people should be "rooting" for Apple. If they lose, companies will be given the green light to simply wait for someone else to do the R&D, take the risk, then simply come out with a knockoff. That will eventually lead to a lot less risk taking and development, leaving a stagnant market.

Competition is good, everyone wins when there is a vibrant market with choices. When everything is just a copy of something else, you end up with a race to the bottom, where innovation slows down, things become more homogenized and price is the only way to differentiate. This is why MS came out with Surface.

Companies should not have to worry about knockoffs. This is what Samsung did. They went out of their way to make their products look and feel like Apple's products, rather then developing their own.

I find it amusing that Android makers could hammer out a deal with microsoft, but apple still refuses to come up with reasonable licensing.

Why do you find that amusing? Apple is in a stronger position than Microsoft, of course Microsoft will make concessions. If Microsoft was in the position Apple is now (ie, raking in the majority of mobile market profits), do you honestly think they would be "hammering out" deals with Android device makers?

Companies fuck each other all the time. Samsung is fucking Apple by shamelessly stealing their designs, Apple is fucking them with lawsuits and Microsoft is fucking Android vendors with the (sweet for Microsoft) licencing costs. Motorola and Samsung, themselves, are trying to fuck Microsoft and Apple over by pulling out additional "licence requirement" for FRAND patents out of their asses, even though those are already factored into the chip price of the chips Apple and Microsoft use.

It’s not Apple’s problem that Samsung went into the whole iPhone-like-smartphones business thinking it will be as easy as fucking over companies and people in South Korea, where they enjoy de facto government support. If they had any less idiots amont their management ranks, they’d damn well manage to make something unique enough a la Windows Phone 7. Sadly, they have no morals, and Apple is finally in the position to fight back.

The most damaging thing going against Samsung at this point (to me) are:1. Google had at least partially agreed and warned Samsung.2. Samsung has already been down this road and changed their design in Germany and now things are resolved there (which also shows that these aren't FRAND patents)....

I don't really have a dispute for the other portion of what you said, so I deleted it in an effort to make a post that isn't crazy long (sorry if someone is offended). I would like to point out, though, that on point 2, they also went down this road in the UK where Apple was ordered to issue a public apology. Not saying that Germany shouldn't be taken into consideration, just that when presented it should be taken in context.

They entered a market that had existed peacefully for over 15 years with amazing leaps in design and technology all being used as inspiration by competitors in a healthy manner and are saying "even though we borrowed tons of tech and design from prior innovators you can't borrow ANY of ours..."

You're kidding right? The cell phone industry has been anything but peaceful. Ever. Have a look at why the whole FRAND system was put into play. You'll find some very familiar names, names that are still causing problems, even with FRAND in place.

No, not kidding. Prior to Apple entering the market, there were plenty of lawsuits, that is true. However, they all basically were used as leverage to quickly come to a settlement. "Hey, that's our patent, pay us .05% of all your sales to perpetuity on that device and let's call it a day". FRAND has existed for a long time and in the cell phone industry but hasn't traditionally been used as a weapon. All that changed when the new kid on the block (Apple) patented everything they could possibly think of on the iPhone and began suing anyone how produced a product that even looked like it. It's NOT just Samsung that they are suing; HTC, Motorola, Nokia and all the others are in the iron-sights as well. Apple patented ridiculous features that should be FRAND in themselves and have existed before the iPhone; pinch to zoom or clicking a phone number in an email or webpage brings up the dialer. They managed to hold up a ton of HTC phones over that last one.

In short, they started playing differently than all of the other players in the market. No one bothered to ever patent the stuff that Apple did in many cases. And so the established players decided to bring out heavy guns against the upstart and started throwing FRAND lawsuits around. iFan's love to throw around how "dirty" Samsung is but Apple started all the mud-slinging and isn't just targeting the original Galaxy in their scope.

Quote:

Quote:

The true reality is that Apple is really suing to protect their walled garden, closed platform approach. Once again they are trying to compete against the Win/PC model of openness, except this time it is Android holding the reins. People want choice. They want options that make them feel unique, different, or special. They want competition. They want value.

Each cell phone manufacturer wants to lock you into their eco-system. Android, iOS, Windows and it's various iterations, RIM. ALL of them have a walled garden. All of them are competition. All of them offer value. Android phones are often cheaper, but have a less useful lifespan. Since it is pretty rare for their software to ever get upgraded. Working as intended. You end up buying a new phone, instead of getting newer software free.

Apple produces a higher end product, that goes for some money. Unlike a lot of 'Free' Android phones. But they have a much longer service life. Both approaches offer value, just from a different angle. As far as MS and their phone software in W8, that's still an unknown. I hope they take a hard line with carriers like Apple did, to both insure their software gets updated, and to get rid of the stupid carrier bloat.

Some people want cheaper, less featured phones. But don't try and throw in all Android devices in teh "less useful lifespan" category. Top-end Android phones have had more functionality and features than the iPhone ever since the original one launched. Don't even get me started on the features that Apple likes to "borrow" straight from Android, because Google hasn't traditionally gone patent crazy about things like the "notification drawer", so unless you copy their exact iteration of it they really don't care.

Quote:

Quote:

Apple doesn't want any of these things. They want their garden, and only their garden. They are losing marketshare not because Samsung made one phone that looked a lot like the iPhone, but because Apple made one phone that doesn't look or act like any of the other 100 different versions of Android phones out there. They made another Mac, and Android is powering this generation of customizable and different PCs.

Apple, like everyone else wants to sell a product. And to sell products of their own design in the future. By going after Samsung for blatantly obvious copying, other companies and Samsung themselves will be sure to differentiate their products. Not a bad thing at all. Good for innovation, and good for consumers as they get a real choice. Not a Product A, or Product A copy.

By looking at companies as sports teams, with fandom and cheering people are depriving themselves of choices. Currently I use an Android phone made by Samsung. And quite frankly I hate it. When I replace this one it will be either back to an iPhone, or maybe W8. We'll see.

I'm a fan of technology as well. My point is that Apple isn't...they are a fan of THEIR technology, and they always have been. Jobs didn't declare war on the Samsung Galaxy and say that it had copied the iPhone...he declared war on the entire Android operating system and said that he would fight to destroy it. That is not someone who is a fan of technology, that is someone who wants the entire pie to themselves.

For all the blame laid on Apple, this suit would have been toothlessif Samsung had not tried to create near copies of the icons and animations (all documented in court), packaging and artwork, and overall physical design.

There would be $3 in alleged utility patent infringement over the pinch and tap zoom animations, and probably no injunctions. $80m in fees is cheaper than court costs.

This is in no way a game of blame the victim because as it stands Apple is the alleged victim, in filing suit, not Samsung.

For all the blame laid on Apple, this suit would have been toothlessif Samsung had not tried to create near copies of the icons and animations (all documented in court), packaging and artwork, and overall physical design.

You're right. But then it also looks like Apple didn't develop all of it themselves.

For all the blame laid on Apple, this suit would have been toothlessif Samsung had not tried to create near copies of the icons and animations (all documented in court), packaging and artwork, and overall physical design.

You're right. But then it also looks like Apple didn't develop all of it themselves.

Yes they did.

The only things we see in court that shows any influence on the final product is the pinch-zoom. All the rest of the art and design as I've stated is, from what I've read of the court case, unique to Apple.

And by unique, I'm using the standard of trademark and not the standard of invention.

For all the blame laid on Apple, this suit would have been toothlessif Samsung had not tried to create near copies of the icons and animations (all documented in court), packaging and artwork, and overall physical design.

You're right. But then it also looks like Apple didn't develop all of it themselves.

For all the blame laid on Apple, this suit would have been toothlessif Samsung had not tried to create near copies of the icons and animations (all documented in court), packaging and artwork, and overall physical design.

You're right. But then it also looks like Apple didn't develop all of it themselves.

Yes they did.

And the evidence says samsung developed their icons independently.

You mean the document where the reviewer says the icons look too much like Apple's and more effort needs to be made to reduce that impression?

Quote:

As you can see, the internal Samsung document presented at trial by Apple says the Samsung phone provides a "strong impression that iPhone's icon concept was copied." The "directions for improvement" are that Samsung designers should "Remove a feeling that iPhone's menu icons are copied by differentiating design."

So someone inside already knew that the icons looked like they copied the iPhone, and more effort needed to be made to reduce that impression. That exact quote above is from Ars, as read from the Samsung document.

When I looked briefly at the materials it appeared to me that Samsung had very similar designs in-house prior to the public appearance of the iPhone. If so, then Apple is mistaken in the idea they own the iPhone look.

It is possible the quote about reducing the impression is after two independent design processes arrive at a very similar conclusion. Who would have thought that rounding the corners of icons would make them appear less rigid and hard? Give designers some credit for knowing their area of expertise.

It seems to me to be about the walled garden and driving up expenses for competitors. Incidentally, I hear a new version of iTunes is coming out and it is called Tabby 10.9.

OrangeCream wrote:

So someone inside already knew that the icons looked like they copied the iPhone, and more effort needed to be made to reduce that impression. That exact quote above is from Ars, as read from the Samsung document.

When I looked briefly at the materials it appeared to me that Samsung had very similar designs in-house prior to the public appearance of the iPhone. If so, then Apple is mistaken in the idea they own the iPhone look.

It is possible the quote about reducing the impression is after two independent design processes arrive at a very similar conclusion. Who would have thought that rounding the corners of icons would make them appear less rigid and hard? Give designers some credit for knowing their area of expertise.

It seems to me to be about the walled garden and driving up expenses for competitors. Incidentally, I hear a new version of iTunes is coming out and it is called Tabby 10.9.

OrangeCream wrote:

So someone inside already knew that the icons looked like they copied the iPhone, and more effort needed to be made to reduce that impression. That exact quote above is from Ars, as read from the Samsung document.

Here are a few pictures that may help.

The first link here is the F700. The one everyone touts as being before the iPhone. Take a good look at the icons. Not even remotely Apple-like. And if they were colorized, would still be nothing Apple-like.

This link is a picture of Samsungs best phone of 2008, as rated by several publications. After the iPhone, but before Android was re-released. Again, clear and understandable icons, without a trace of resemblance to Apples.

Also, Samsung's documented internal designs are from 2010, three years after the iPhone. There is no way they weren't influenced, as opposed to independent of, by the iPhone given the quotes in the document saying it was too much like an iPhone.